Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

This economic panic is pushing the planet right back down the agenda
George Monbiot, The Guardian
Oil-dependent countries are focused on growth at all costs, and the pale green political consensus looks unlikely to hold
---
Almost everyone seems to agree: governments now face a choice between saving the planet and saving the economy. As recession looms, the political pressure to abandon green policies intensifies. A report published yesterday by Ernst & Young suggests that the EU's puny carbon target will raise energy bills by 20% over the next 12 years. Last week the prime minister's advisers admitted to the Guardian that his renewable energy plans were "on the margins" of what people will tolerate.

But these fears are based on a false assumption: that there is a cheap alternative to a green economy. Last week New Scientist reported a survey of oil industry experts, which found that most of them believe global oil supplies will peak by 2010. If they are right, the game is up. A report published by the US department of energy in 2005 argued that unless the world begins a crash programme of replacements 10 or 20 years before oil peaks, a crisis "unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society" is unavoidable.

If the world is sliding into recession, it's partly because governments believed that they could choose between economy and ecology. The price of oil is so high and it hurts so much because there has been no serious effort to reduce our dependency.
(1 July 2008)

The world's will to tackle climate change is irresistible
Rajendra Pachauri, Guardian
Far from stymying the environmental cause, the downturn in the world's economies highlights just how pressing it is
---
... there is growing worldwide concern that the economic slowdown could lead to a parallel slowdown in environmental progress, with governments less willing to advocate the hard steps essential for reducing greenhouse emissions. This is indeed a worry, but I see a ray of hope, as I believe that global society is seriously questioning whether today's problems can be solved through short-term measures, as has been the case with routine ups and downs in the economy during past cycles. Could this lead to a widespread realisation that today's problems are the result of fundamental flaws in past growth and development patterns? There are, in my view, two reasons to suggest that the answer could be yes.

First, the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness of the science behind climate change, with the contents of the IPCC's fourth assessment disseminated extensively by the media worldwide. A growing number of people - and not just typical environmentalists - now believe that climate change is not a concern for the distant future but something we are witnessing here and now.

... Second, this existing resolve is being strengthened considerably by increasing oil prices, which prompted even a conservative Republican like President Bush to state that America is "addicted to oil" and must switch to alternatives. Car manufacturers are already investing heavily in electric vehicles - which reduce oil dependency and emissions - and public transport systems are getting renewed attention. As some politicians in the UK and elsewhere have recently argued, with high oil prices the world can't afford not to go green.

The possibility of a shift to other forms of energy is something that is not lost on the major oil producers.

Rajendra K Pachauri chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and is director general of The Energy & Resources Institute
(30 June 2008)

Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling
Pew Research Center
Support for Conservation and Environmental Protection Declines, More Favor Drilling in ANWR
---
Amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking. Compared with just a few months ago, many more Americans are giving higher priority to more energy exploration, rather than more conservation. An increasing proportion also says that developing new sources of energy -- rather than protecting the environment -- is the more important national priority.

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 adults, also finds that half of Americans now support drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, up from 42% in February.

The public's changing energy priorities are most evident in the growing percentage that views increased energy exploration -- including mining and drilling, as well as the construction of new power plants -- as a more important priority for energy policy than increased conservation and regulation. Nearly half (47%) now rates energy exploration as the more important priority, up from 35% in February. The proportion saying it is more important to increase energy conservation and regulation has declined by 10 points (from 55% to 45%).
(1 July 2008)

U.S. Midwest floods show signs of global warming
Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters
Floods like those that inundated the U.S. Midwest are supposed to occur once every 500 years but this is the second since 1993, suggesting flawed forecasts that do not take global warming into account, conservation experts said on Tuesday.

"Although no single weather event can be attributed to global warming, it's critical to understand that a warming climate is supplying the very conditions that fuel these kinds of weather events," said Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation.

Warmer air can carry more water, Staudt said in a telephone briefing, and this means more heavy precipitation in the central United States. Big Midwestern storms that used to be seen every 20 years or so will likely occur every four to six years by century's end, she said.
(2 July 2008)
Scott Chisholm Lamont writes:
The idea that a dynamic system with multiple inputs (weather and rainfall) and outcomes (such as flooding) would be immune to macro system changes (climate change, or even topsoil erosion and deforestation) is simply ludicrous. What justification does the Army Corps of Engineers have for sticking to these assumptions?

This is particularly interesting in light of the recent articles, such as in the NY Times, regarding questions on the reliability of large scale agriculture for providing feedstock for transport fuels. If the security of key agricultural land in the midwest is open to question over the long term, then energy planning based on assumed output from the area is also open to question. Given that a major portion of projected growth in fuel supplies from non-OPEC nations includes biofuels, this presents a problem in the form of "all liquids" production available to the market.